The 2nd Cricket Test between Australia and India came to an exciting, but fractious, end yesterday. The Australian team won after India lost 3 wickets in the final over (less than 10 minutes from the scheduled end), but the battle continued afterwards, with some pointed comments about the 'spirit of the game'. (Indian fan reactions here). This debate centres on whether players should 'walk' if they know they are out, rather than leaving it up to the umpire. As a cricket fan (as opposed to an Australian one) I would prefer that players do walk. But I can also see the point of view that players also get bad decisions from the Umpires, and walking removes the opportunity for these things to 'even out'.
While Golf is held up as an example of a self policing game, it does happen in chess as well, as the following game demonstrates.
Gluzman,M (2435) - Johansen,D (2490) [B22]
Doeberl Cup Canberra (4), 1998
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Na3 Qd8 7.Bg5 cxd4 8.Nb5 a6 9.Nbxd4 Nbd7 10.Be2 Qc7 11.0-0 Bd6 12.Re1 0-0 13.Bf1 Ng4 (D)
After playing this move Johansen got up from the board. Before he returned Gluzman touched the h pawn, with the intention of kicking the knight with h3. He then realised this allowed a mate in 2 after 14. ... Bh2+ 15.Kh1 Nxf2# Now I don't know if anyone witnessed him touching the pawn, but I (as the arbiter) certainly didn't. Gluzman then waited for Johansen to return, moved the touched pawn and resigned. 14.h3 0-1
At the time the game was played both players were sharing first place (3/3). However Gluzman then won his remaining 3 games, while Johansen conceded draws in rounds 6&7, allowing Gluzman to share first place with Johansen, and take the trophy on tie-break!